Sindh Yüksek Mahkemesi akaryakıt fiyatlandırma mekanizmasına itirazı reddetti

SHC throws out petition against petroleum pricing mechanism

KARACHI: While turning down a petition filed against the petroleum pricing mechanism, the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday observed that determination of prices, levying taxes and formation of economic policy primarily came within the exclusive domain of the executive and legislature. The SHC further noted that in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, the court could not ordinarily interfere in fiscal policy matters unless they were patently without lawful authority, discriminatory and violative of any specific constitutional or statutory provision. A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC headed by Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon further said that the petitioner had failed to establish infringement of any enforceable fundamental right capable of judicial enforcement in the facts and circumstances of the case. Citing the ministries of finance and energy & petroleum, establishment division as well as the Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) as respondents, Syed Khalid Shah had petitioned the SHC and mainly impugned the mechanism adopted by the respondents for fixation of petroleum prices. Bench says judiciary can’t interfere in fiscal policy matters unless they’re violative of Constitution He submitted that the existing pricing mechanism has failed to reflect actual international crude oil prices and has illegally, as well as unconstitutionally, imposed excessive petroleum deployment levy (PDL). The petitioner asked the SHC to issue directives to respondents to reduce prices of petroleum products and publicly disclose every component of pricing based upon internationally recognised principles and actual market conditions. At the outset of the hearing, the bench confronted the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy it about maintainability of the petition as it was the decision of the executive. The counsel argued that petroleum products were essential commodities directly affecting transportation, agriculture, industry, electricity generation and the daily lives of the public and despite a substantial decline in international crude oil prices since early 2025, the respondents had failed to proportionately reduce domestic petroleum prices. However, the lawyers also submitted that after the removal of the statutory cap on PDL, they continued to increase the levy and retain artificially inflated retail prices, using petroleum pricing primarily as a revenue-generating mechanism rather than a fair reflection of international market conditions. They further contended that a significant portion of the retail price now comprises PDL and other fiscal charges while respondents remained unable to disclose a transparent and verifiable pricing formula showing the basis of the final consumer price. The bench in its order said that the grievance essentially related to fixation of petroleum prices, quantum of PDL and the fiscal policy adopted by the federal government. “The determination of prices, levy of taxes and formation of economic and fiscal policy fall primarily within the exclusive domain of the executive and legislature”, it added. It also noted that under its constitutional jurisdiction, the court could not ordinarily interfere in such matters unless the same were patently without lawful authority, actuated by mala fides, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of any specific constitutional or statutory provision. The bench further said, “The petitioner has primarily questioned the wisdom, fairness and transparency of pricing mechanism without placing on record any material demonstrating violation of any mandatory statutory provision or establishing that the impugned pricing decisions suffer from jurisdictional defect, mala fides or constitutional infirmity warranting judicial review”. It stated that the determination of petroleum prices necessarily involved consideration of diverse economic factors including international crude oil prices, exchange rate fluctuations, freight, refining costs, taxation, fiscal requirements and other policy considerations which required expert evaluation and were not amenable to judicial determination in constitutional proceedings. The bench also noted that while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court did not sit as an appellate forum over economic or fiscal policies of government. “Unless such policies were shown to be ex-facie unconstitutional or contrary to law, the court must exercise judicial restraint and refrain from substituting its own opinion for that of the competent policy-making authorities”, it added. It further noted that the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any enforceable fundamental right and mere dissatisfaction with the prevailing petroleum prices or fiscal measures adopted by the government cannot by itself furnish a valid ground for invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the court. “For the foregoing reasons, this petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution and is accordingly dismissed in limine,” it concluded. Published in Dawn, July 7th, 2026